The State & Revolution

[Zeitgeizt]

I would never have imagined that I would be posting a link to Lenin's The State and Revolution on a Marxist board - but I think there are some people here who really need to read this.


http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/work...terev/index.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/index.htm)


And now stay tuned from a word from RedStar....

[Kamerat Voldstad]

Good call.

I've read it, I think its great. Its the best Marxist work ever. Lenin writes Marx better than Marx.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 12:30 AM
I would never have imagined that I would be posting a link to Lenin's The State and Revolution on a Marxist board - but I think there are some people here who really need to read this.


http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/work...terev/index.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/index.htm)


And now stay tuned from a word from RedStar....
One can find some of Lenin's writings valuable without being a "Leninist". Personally, I do think there is a fundamental difference between Lenin the pre-October revolutionist and Lenin the post-October statesman, and that understanding has a liberating quality all its own -- as long as you understand why there is that difference.

Miles

[kurt]

yes.. material reality can be very unforgiving.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Zeitgeizt
And now stay tuned from a word from RedStar....

Always happy to oblige. :)

When one is a young revolutionary drawn into Leninist circles, one is always given two books to read: What Is To Be Done? and State and Revolution.

The first of these works argues the fundamental Leninist thesis: the working class "cannot" make a proletarian revolution "unless" it is led by a small group of "professional revolutionaries" -- the "officer corps" of the "proletarian army".

The second is mostly a "copy & paste" book. Lenin tracked down every reference he could find to post-revolutionary society in the published works of Marx and Engels and quoted them at length.

Interestingly enough, the "vanguard party" hardly gets a mention in State and Revolution...since Marx and Engels thought that post-revolutionary societies would actually be governed by the entire working class.

Thus, State and Revolution is the most "Marxist" book that Lenin ever "wrote". The "vision of communism" in that book is enormously appealing.

Indeed, it actually approaches anarchism. I ran across one anarchist once who said that the whole reason Lenin compiled State and Revolution was "because" some of the large factories in Petrograd contained a lot of workers with "strong anarchist sympathies" and who were "deeply suspicious of the Bolsheviks".

The historical "consensus" seems to be that Lenin really did think that things would "go this easy"...because a revolution in Germany and France would "quickly follow" and advanced technology would flow into Russia as a consequence.

Not to mention the fact that he observed, upon his arrival in Petrograd, that the masses really were "more revolutionary than the party"...perhaps giving rise to some doubts about his own thesis on the "role of the vanguard".

In any event, this "all changed" after October. I believe there's one document where Lenin actually complains that "no one told us what to do after the revolution".

To see the drastic "shift" in Lenin's position once he realized that he and his party were about to be "in command", I recommend this...

Can the Bolsheviks Retain State Power? (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/oct/01.htm)

This was written and published only a couple of weeks before the Bolshevik coup.

It's worth a very careful reading.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[KC]

In any event, this "all changed" after October.

Why's "all changed" in quotes? Haha you need to cool it with the quotes a little. And the bold. It's fine in moderation, but soon you're just going to have your whole posts bolded and in quotes. :lol:

[DisIllusion]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Dec 23 2005, 01:05 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Dec 23 2005, 01:05 AM)
Zeitgeizt
And now stay tuned from a word from RedStar....

The first of these works argues the fundamental Leninist thesis: the working class "cannot" make a proletarian revolution "unless" it is led by a small group of "professional revolutionaries" -- the "officer corps" of the "proletarian army".

[/b]
But wouldn't the creation of a "officer corps" in a proletarian army make another, somewhat higher class? This would seem almost detrimental and almost hypocritical to Socialism when you're trying to destroy all social class but still have some people be "more valuable" or higher in rank.

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by DisIllusion+Dec 23 2005, 01:31 PM--> (DisIllusion @ Dec 23 2005, 01:31 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 01:05 AM

Zeitgeizt
And now stay tuned from a word from RedStar....

The first of these works argues the fundamental Leninist thesis: the working class "cannot" make a proletarian revolution "unless" it is led by a small group of "professional revolutionaries" -- the "officer corps" of the "proletarian army".


But wouldn't the creation of a "officer corps" in a proletarian army make another, somewhat higher class? This would seem almost detrimental and almost hypocritical to Socialism when you're trying to destroy all social class but still have some people be "more valuable" or higher in rank. [/b]
That's his whole point, dude.

[Bolshevist]

But wouldn't the creation of a "officer corps" in a proletarian army make another, somewhat higher class? This would seem almost detrimental and almost hypocritical to Socialism when you're trying to destroy all social class but still have some people be "more valuable" or higher in rank.

Not really. The idea is that the more advanced layers of the working class gets political education in Marxism, so it is capable of leading revolutionary moments with sucsess. The lack of a revolutionary party with a consistent leadership has spoiled many moments when the masses were ready to initiate a socialist revolution, the most recent example being Bolivia where the leadership of the Bolivian Workers Union (COB) issued this statement in relation to the October 2003 movement there: “If the workers did not take power it was because of the lack of a revolutionary party”.

Alan Woods, in his article "Bolivian elections - What position should the Marxists take?" wrote this, which sums up the need for a revolutionary party with a experienced leadership:

"“If the workers did not take power it was because of the lack of a revolutionary party”, they said, and they were completely right. At that time there was a nationwide general strike with road blockades across the country, while a mass of angry workers and peasants, with the armed miners at the forefront, gathered outside the Presidential Palace in La Paz demanding the resignation of the then president Sanchez de Lozada.

When “Goni” Sanchez de Lozada was finally forced to resign, power was transferred for a few hours to the streets. Unfortunately, the leaders of the workers’ organisations, even the most radicalised of them, had no clear idea of what to do next. By their inaction they allowed the ruling class to replace Goni with Mesa and re-establish bourgeois legality. The trade union leaders declared a truce towards the new government, thereby sowing illusions that somehow Mesa would rule in favour of the workers and peasants and would stand up to the multinationals. Although the masses had not been defeated, once the opportunity had been wasted, it would take some time for a new mass movement to develop."

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Bolshevist+--> (Bolshevist)...the most recent example being Bolivia where the leadership of the Bolivian Workers Union (COB) issued this statement in relation to the October 2003 movement there: “If the workers did not take power it was because of the lack of a revolutionary party”.[/b]

In other words, the leadership of this union said, in effect, "hey, don't look at us!"

Most amusing. :lol:


The idea is that the more advanced layers of the working class gets political education in Marxism, so it is capable of leading revolutionary moments with success.

No, the Leninist party is actually led by radical petty-bourgeois elements...especially in the "third world" where advanced education is a class privilege.

Ordinary party members, many of whom may be working class, are not taught more than a few scraps of Marxism. Their real task is to carry out the line of the Party as instructed by their petty-bourgeois leadership.

You know the story of Khrushchev -- a working class Russian who was not even literate until he learned to read and write in a "Party school" after he joined the Bolsheviks in 1918.

I think that is typical in "third world" Leninist parties.

The only sense in which the working class membership of a "third world" Leninist party is "advanced" is in their willingness to do whatever the Party leadership tells them to do.


Alan Woods
Unfortunately, the leaders of the workers’ organisations, even the most radicalised of them, had no clear idea of what to do next. By their inaction they allowed the ruling class to replace Goni with Mesa and re-establish bourgeois legality.

Perhaps true. But the implied alternative -- a Leninist party that would have staged a successful coup -- would not have "brought the workers to power". We already know that it would have been the petty-bourgeois leadership of that hypothetical party that would have "come to power".

It would have established a "socialist" despotism, introduced a wide-ranging set of social welfare policies, possibly launched a campaign to develop the Bolivian economy in a more well-rounded way, and taken such other measures required to bring Bolivia into the modern capitalist world.

The petty-bourgeois leadership would eventually become a new and vigorous bourgeoisie...far less subservient to international capital than the old ruling classes that it overthrew.

Something along these lines may well be in Bolivia's future. Mr. Woods may "get his party" in that hapless country.

But it will have nothing to do with "workers coming to power".

IF Marx was right, that can only happen in the most advanced capitalist countries.

Precisely the countries where Leninism is "withering away" for lack of proletarian interest.

A petty-bourgeois despotism has gone "out of style" here.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[red_che]

The first of these works argues the fundamental Leninist thesis: the working class "cannot" make a proletarian revolution "unless" it is led by a small group of "professional revolutionaries" -- the "officer corps" of the "proletarian army".

Let me make a correction on your post, redstar. Lenin never said that the working class cannot make a proletarian revolution, for he knows very well that they can. What he emphasized, however, is that the proletarian revolution cannot win without a vanguard party composed of the advanced section of the proletariat.


Interestingly enough, the "vanguard party" hardly gets a mention in State and Revolution...since Marx and Engels thought that post-revolutionary societies would actually be governed by the entire working class.

Again, your oversimplification of things make it more complicated and absurd. Marx and Engels always had in mind that a communist society is one that is a classless society, and therefore, no state organization and institution whatsoever. So, the working class wouldn't be a ruling class for they have no other class to rule of, but instead the communist society is nothing but a stateless and classless society where there is no private property of the means of production.

However, what Lenin emphasized is the rule of the proletariat, through its vanguard party, during the entire epoch of the revolutionary transformation from capitalism to communism - which is socialism/socialist revolution and construction.


No, the Leninist party is actually led by radical petty-bourgeois elements...especially in the "third world" where advanced education is a class privilege.

Marx and Engels themselves were not working class by descent. And Lenin, and Mao and Ho Chi Minh, and other communist leaders and thinkers. Even Anarchist thinkers were not proletariat by class origin. So, what's your point?


The petty-bourgeois leadership would eventually become a new and vigorous bourgeoisie...far less subservient to international capital than the old ruling classes that it overthrew.

Therefore, Marxism isn't a proletarian theory, even Anarchism as taught by Proudhon, Bakunin, etc.

If that&#39;s your line of thinking, then nothing is proletarian yet until someone of working class origin have put forward such thoughts, or are you implying that your thoughts are the real proletarian theories that we must follow, huh? <_<

[Bolshevist]

Ordinary party members, many of whom may be working class, are not taught more than a few scraps of Marxism. Their real task is to carry out the line of the Party as instructed by their petty-bourgeois leadership.

I am not shure if you are arguing against the real Bolshevik tradition set forth by Lenin, or the Stalinist deviation of genuine revolutionary tactics.. It for me becomes somewhat odd to reply to you since all you are basing your arguments around is a "hypotetical Leninist party", which for all I know does not even exist. What are you arguing against? Bolshevism or "hypotetical Bolshevism"?

In any case, the real Bolshevik party differs from your description, unless you of course buy into the bourgieous history concerning the party. What is a fact, is that the Bolshevik party was marked by extreme internal democracy as noted in the book Bolshevism: Road to Revolution:

"the idea of the Bolshevik Party as a monolithic structure, where the leaders ordered and the rank-and-file obeyed, is a malicious falsehood. On the contrary, the Bolshevik Party was the most democratic party in history. Even in the most difficult periods of underground work, in the heart of the revolution and in the most dangerous days of the civil war, the internal regime, and especially its highest expression, the Congress, was the arena of open and honest discussion, with the clash of different ideas. But there is a limit for all things. At the end of the day, a party which seeks, not only to talk, but also to act, must reach decisions and carry them into practice."


We already know that it would have been the petty-bourgeois leadership of that hypothetical party that would have "come to power".

How do we know such things? You have not even given a concrete example of "Leninist" behaviour which can back up your accusations, instead you rely on hypotetical parties for which you then use to slander Bolshevism. This is not the dialectical (Marxist) method which requires absolute objectivity. I ask of you to present real-life examples, not something which does not exist.


It would have established a "socialist" despotism, introduced a wide-ranging set of social welfare policies, possibly launched a campaign to develop the Bolivian economy in a more well-rounded way, and taken such other measures required to bring Bolivia into the modern capitalist world.

So now it becomes apparant that you are critisising the Stalinist theory of stages? You know, that for socialism to be established a bourgeious democracy must be established first to develop the productive forces... Lenin always firmly rejected this theory, which was first brought into the light of day by the economists in pre-revolutionary Russia..



Something along these lines may well be in Bolivia&#39;s future. Mr. Woods may "get his party" in that hapless country.

I think you are missing out on a thing, namely that since times changes, so does idea. In the days of old Marx, constructing socialism in a backward country with minimal or no industry would be seen as an act of lunacy, but this is not the case with the third world today. Large portions of industry and jobs is transfered to these countries because there exists a large supply of cheap labour, effectively giving rise to a proletariat there. Why should not this proletariat come to power in the thirld world, even when revolutionary moments occur? According to you, they should just go back to work, without ever focusing on socialism because it will only lead to despotism anyways..

I think what marks your thoughts is first world chauvinism.. Better to get rid of it now than when the third world proletariat proves you wrong&#33;

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by red_che+--> (red_che)Marx and Engels themselves were not working class by descent. And Lenin, and Mao and Ho Chi Minh, and other communist leaders and thinkers. Even Anarchist thinkers were not proletariat by class origin. So, what&#39;s your point?[/b]

A radical petty-bourgeois thinker can hypothetically express the class interests of the proletariat. It&#39;s a very rare event but does happen "once in a while".

A petty-bourgeois in a position of authority cannot avoid having his own class interests "come out" in his actual behavior.

Had Marx or Bakunin ever been in a position to "give orders", we might well be less than pleased with the results. :o

My point is that class background is important...you can&#39;t just pretend that "it doesn&#39;t matter" or that it can be overcome by "act of will".

When you are taught from birth that you are "inherently superior" to the vast majority of the human species, that "class conditioning" shapes your future behavior.

Now it&#39;s true that petty bourgeois elements are constantly being "proletarianized" in the course of the normal functioning of capitalist society. Such people do begin to acquire a proletarian "outlook" as a consequence of their new class position.

And a few working class people do "rise" into the petty bourgeoisie or even higher...and begin to acquire the appropriate class outlook.

The situation is always fluid or at least potentially so.

But class outlook is not a "bad habit" that can be modified by some sort of "revolutionary self-improvement" scheme. It has a real history and reflects a real material situation.

Thus it really doesn&#39;t make a whole lot of sense to describe Marxism or anarchism as "real proletarian theories". To the extent that they reflect real proletarian class interests and have been taken up by real proletarians, they begin to be adapted by the proletariat for its own use.

I think there will be proletarian Marxist and anarchist theoreticians in the future and they will make some important changes in those ideas.

I cannot predict what those changes will be, of course...but it would be very strange if that did not happen. Theories do not exist "up in the sky" -- they are grounded in material reality and reflect the class interests (almost always&#33;) of those who embrace them.

It&#39;s quite possible that in a few decades or so, people will speak of "proletarian Marxism" or "proletarian anarchism" and everybody will know what that means.


Bolshevist
What are you arguing against? Bolshevism or "hypothetical Bolshevism"?

Oh dear...another Trotskyist who believes that Trotskyists are "the only real Bolsheviks" while Stalinists and Maoists and all the rest are just "no good deviationist bastards".

Down here on earth, it has historically been the case that the Maoists are responsible for such limited successful practice that the Leninist paradigm has been able to produce since the days of Lenin himself.

In addition, Trotskyism in the "west" was even less successful than "Stalinism".

So when I speak of Leninism, I am speaking of its actual history. I do agree that Trotskyism is just as legitimately Leninist as any of the other varieties...but it has been historically marginal.

In addition, of course, there are plenty of ex-Trotskyists around who have their own "horror stories" to tell about life inside those parties.

You imagine that there is some "drastic difference" in the practice of Trotskyism as opposed to "Stalinism" or Maoism.

There isn&#39;t.


What is a fact, is that the Bolshevik party was marked by extreme internal democracy...

I think it may be fairly said that Lenin&#39;s real party was "far short" of what he outlined in What Is To Be Done?. Quarrels were frequent, disputes common, polemics frequent and often very sharp.

It was almost more of a "movement" than a party.

Much more revealing of Lenin&#39;s real attitude were his speeches and resolutions at the 10th Party Congress (March 1921). This was Lenin&#39;s chance to get the kind of party he really wanted...which he successfully accomplished with the support of both Stalin and Trotsky.

Not to mention imposing this kind of structure on all the parties that became part of the 3rd International.

This is the "Leninist Party" that has come down to us.

The leadership decides everything. The membership carries out its orders. The whole process is no more "democratic" than any other despotism.

Trotskyists like to make the point that things didn&#39;t "get really bad" until after Lenin died and Stalin took over and "Stalinized" all the parties of the 3rd International.

And there&#39;s some truth to that. Some of the 3rd International parties began with a strong proletarian element in their leaderships and a good deal of internal ideological struggle. Some even had "ultra-leftists" and in no small numbers.

But the "ice age" really set in during the 1930s...after that nothing really interesting happened.

So Trotskyists "blame Stalin"...for doing exactly what he thought Lenin wanted him to do.

Go figure. :lol:


How do we know such things?

Because it&#39;s inherent in the way that "third world" Leninist parties are structured...beginning with the Bolsheviks themselves. Education is a class privilege in the "third world" -- and thus a Leninist party&#39;s leadership must come from petty-bourgeois elements (or even higher&#33;).


So now it becomes apparent that you are criticising the Stalinist theory of stages? You know, that for socialism to be established a bourgeois democracy must be established first to develop the productive forces... Lenin always firmly rejected this theory, which was first brought into the light of day by the economists in pre-revolutionary Russia.

This is rather incoherent.

What I think is that every country must pass through an epoch of bourgeois production...and whether it is formally "democratic" or openly despotic is essentially trivial. As Lenin himself recognized, bourgeois "democracy" is the despotism of capital.

(An insight, by the way, that&#39;s been completely forgotten by modern Leninists...who have almost all become parliamentary cretins in the "west".)

What the old Russian "economists" didn&#39;t grasp (I think) is that you could have an epoch of bourgeois production "wrapped in red flags".

We know better now...or should&#33;


In the days of old Marx, constructing socialism in a backward country with minimal or no industry would be seen as an act of lunacy, but this is not the case with the third world today. Large portions of industry and jobs is transfered to these countries because there exists a large supply of cheap labour, effectively giving rise to a proletariat there. Why should not this proletariat come to power in the third world, even when revolutionary moments occur?

This is a rather complicated question. Among the factors that must be taken into consideration are...

1. Imperialism does "develop" an industrial proletariat in the neo-colony -- but only in that part of the economy that is profitable to them. The vast bulk of the economy is left to rot. Most people there still "live" in quasi-feudal rural squalor and urban shanty-towns.

2. Even most of the neo-colony&#39;s modern proletariat remains illiterate, heavily burdened with all sorts of superstitious bullshit, patriarchal traditions, brutality towards children, etc.

3. This kind of primitive proletariat is unfit to rule...indeed, they can only imagine "liberation" in terms of a "benevolent" despotism.

4. Only the urban petty-bourgeoisie are actually exposed to modern ideas. A few of them begin to grasp the notion that their country will always be a shit-hole...unless the shackles of imperialism are broken. And when they look around to see how that might be done...they discover the Leninist paradigm -- especially Maoism.

The imperialists can be defeated and thrown out on their ass&#33;

Sure, they also pick up a lot of academic rhetoric about "socialism" and "communism"...and they use that rhetoric without any understanding of its real meaning.

If they come to power, they do exactly what I said they would do. Expel the imperialists and all their local lackeys. Establish modern social welfare systems. Clear away all (or nearly all) of the old feudal crap. Build a modern infrastructure. Teach the whole population how to read and write. And, if they are really perceptive, develop their own economy in a well-rounded way.

At the same time, of course, these radical petty-bourgeois "revolutionaries" are evolving into a modern capitalist class...readying both themselves and their economy to re-enter the "world marketplace" as a "real player" instead of a pathetic neo-colonial dependency.

This is how "1789" worked in the last century...and may well work in this century as well.

OR it may be the "Venezuelan model" that spreads. A "Napoleon-like" figure uses his personal popularity to mobilize the population to do all those things I mentioned above.

In which case, Mr. Woods will not get his "revolutionary party" in Bolivia because it won&#39;t be required.


I think what marks your thoughts is first world chauvinism.

Yeah, I hear that sometimes...but I don&#39;t pay much attention to it.

It usually comes from people for whom historical materialism is "a closed book".

Thus they are simply unable to tell the difference between rhetoric and reality.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[YKTMX]

I think it&#39;s an important Marxist work, though not Lenin&#39;s best or most important writing.

Remember, when he was writing S&R, Russia was in the middle of revolution. So, the book was an important piece of not just &#39;theorizing&#39;, but an actual formulation about how we might make the revolution. I think it&#39;s also an important example of how highly democratic and libertarian Lenin&#39;s thinking had become in the course of the Russian Revolution.

Whereas WITBD is indicative of highly repressive Tsarism, S&R is full of revolutionary optimism.


I ran across one anarchist once who said that the whole reason Lenin compiled State and Revolution was "because" some of the large factories in Petrograd contained a lot of workers with "strong anarchist sympathies" and who were "deeply suspicious of the Bolsheviks".


:lol:

[Bolshevist]

Originally posted by "Redstar"
Oh dear...another Trotskyist who believes that Trotskyists are "the only real Bolsheviks" while Stalinists and Maoists and all the rest are just "no good deviationist bastards".

What makes you belive so? I have never claimed that Trotskyism has monopoly on Bolshevism, perhaps others belive so but I do not. Do you have to be a Trot to denounce Stalinism?

You just have to look at what the Stalinists and Maoists actually did to understand they represent little of what Bolshevism once stood for. For example, Bolshevism represents internationalism.. If Stalin was the person who carried on this tradition, why then was the COMINTERN shut down? Was Bolshevism correctly being adjusted to the new situation, where the idea of world revolution was to be abandonded, or could it be that Stalin did not represent what he claimed to do? Or perhaps Mao, waging a peasant guerrilla war entierly forgetting the working class (and even letting Chiang-Check destroy the embryonic working class movement), which, Marxism claim is the only class capable of carrying society forward.. Perhaps you had some bad experience with a &#39;Leninist&#39; party? Is that were your disillusionment of Bolshevism stems from? I do not know, but I do know that it is a fact that neither Stalin nor Mao represented Bolshevism.


Trotskyists like to make the point that things didn&#39;t "get really bad" until after Lenin died and Stalin took over and "Stalinized" all the parties of the 3rd International.

That explanation is by far too superficial.. Indeed, a person can play a major role in history, as we saw when Stalin started to physically liquidate the Bolshevik party, but again, this was the result of October finding itself in complete isolation and for which a bureaucracy began to arise and consolidate its powers.

But I am still unable too see your point in which both Stalin and Mao represented Bolshevism... Perhaps you now care to clarify?


What I think is that every country must pass through an epoch of bourgeois production...and whether it is formally "democratic" or openly despotic is essentially trivial. As Lenin himself recognized, bourgeois "democracy" is the despotism of capital.

I can agree with you to some level on this one, but also remember that imperialism accelerates by many times the capitalist development in a given country.. This is not only seen by capital which is exported to these countries but by which in many cases imperialism helps to break down the remaindings of the old society..

To use one example, after bourgeious-democratic revolutions in Africa was carried out with great sucsess things started to decline as the form of government turned into despotism (as you would call it) which resulted in nearly all the the state insitutions being filled up with clan members of this or that president. This of course created severe problems for progress to be made, and has to some extent been tackled by demands of privatisation by the imperialists. I am not justifying imperialist agression against its former colonies, but it clearly shows us that imperialism, by accelerating capitalist development in a given country is removing the fedual legacy in society and industrialising the economy which clearly paves way for the socialist transformation of society..

Could it be that imperialist development in a country has made more progress in 50 years than (hypotetically of course) what &#39;regular&#39; capitalism would been able to do in 100 years? If so, socialism would seem by far more attractive to a third world proletarian than its first world brother.. And very much a possibility to strive for&#33;

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Bolshevist
I have never claimed that Trotskyism has monopoly on Bolshevism, perhaps others believe so but I do not.

Up to this point, all the Trotskyists who&#39;ve ever posted here have made a point of insisting that Stalinist, Titoists, Maoists, etc. are "not real Leninists".

And you do the same thing.


I do know that it is a fact that neither Stalin nor Mao represented Bolshevism.

It&#39;s only a "fact" in the "Trotsky-universe". In the real universe, Stalin and Mao both carried out what they both regarded as "Leninist" policies in their own countries. And, for that matter, they both had their own versions of "internationalism" -- they supported their friends (or potential friends) and opposed their enemies.

What is most relevant to this thread is that Stalinist, Trotskyist, and Maoist parties are all structured along the same lines -- the ones laid down by Lenin himself at the 10th Party Congress in 1921.

A self-appointed and self-perpetuating petty-bourgeois leadership makes all substantive decisions...and the party members (regardless of class) carry out their orders.

People have come here from various Leninist parties and claimed "our party is not like that".

And ex-members from the same parties have come here and said "oh yes it is&#33;"

So I am not basing my rejection of the Leninist party on "personal experience". There is an enormous amount of testimony from people who&#39;ve been members of various Leninist parties...and those people universally agree that their party was a despotism.

That cannot be a "coincidence".


...but also remember that imperialism accelerates by many times the capitalist development in a given country.

Only in a narrow section of the neo-colonial economy does this development take place.

Everything else is left undisturbed.

Consider, for example, Angola. It "has" a modern petroleum extraction industry. That industry is owned and operated by foreign oil companies. The Angolans who work in it are manual laborers; all the technical jobs are monopolized by foreigners.

The rest of Angola (99% of the country) has barely made it into the "iron age".

So there is a kind of embryonic proletariat there...but it&#39;s very small, very primitive, and no more capable of even imagining self-rule than of flying to the moon by flapping its arms.


Could it be that imperialist development in a country has made more progress in 50 years than (hypothetically of course) what &#39;regular&#39; capitalism would been able to do in 100 years? If so, socialism would seem by far more attractive to a third world proletarian than its first world brother.. And very much a possibility to strive for&#33;

You may be right about this. But keep in mind that what you use the word "socialism" to describe will have nothing in common with what Marx and Engels meant by the word.

It will be a state monopoly capitalist despotism. If it is successful in developing that country&#39;s economy in a well-rounded way, it will create a modern capitalist economy and a modern ruling class to run it.

And I suppose this is a good place to mention it: if it does not develop the country, that new ruling class will still emerge but the country itself will sink back into neo-colonial dependency.

This could be what is happening in Vietnam. And it could be what will happen to Cuba. :(

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[More Fire for the People]

A self-appointed and self-perpetuating petty-bourgeois leadership makes all substantive decisions...and the party members (regardless of class) carry out their orders.
I would like to note this is not always true.


Originally posted by "Zhukov&#39;s &#39;Stalin&#39;"
In January 1944 . . . for the first time during the war there was a joint convocation of both the [Central Committee] Plenum and a session of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. Molotov and Malenkov prepared a draft of a Central Committee decree according to which the Party would be legally distanced from power. It would retain only agitation and propaganda; no one would deprive it of these normal party matters, and participation in the selection of cadres, which was also completely natural. But it simply forbade the Party from interfering in economics and the working of the organs of the state. Stalin read the draft, changed six words in it, and wrote "Agreed" on it. What happened next remains a mystery. . . .

. . . This was a new attempt to lead the Party into the State stable, retaining for it only those functions it really fulfilled during the war. The draft has five signatures: Molotov, Malenkov, Stalin, Khrushchev, Andreev. There was no stenographic record, and we can only guess how others voted. Alas, even the all-powerful State Committee for Defense, with all four members in the Politburo of the Central Committee, could not shatter the old order of things. This proves yet one more time that Stalin never had the power that both anti-Stalinists and Stalinists attribute to him.

The "petty-bourgeois" leadership you accuse of being in complete power is simply not true, when the leadership attempted to reform the party into an organization rather than the government itself the party refused.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Diego Armando
The "petty-bourgeois" leadership you accuse of being in complete power is simply not true, when the leadership attempted to reform the party into an organization rather than the government itself the party refused.

An interesting "story"...I wonder how much truth there is to it.

The people who "refused" (if that actually happened) were not, of course, "the party". As the story goes, it was a joint session of the Central Committee and the Supreme Soviet that turned the idea down.

These would have all been party leaders of one sort or another. An ordinary party member, much less an ordinary Russian worker, would have been as "out of place" in that meeting as in a meeting of the Board of Directors of Haliburton.

Recall when Khrushchev was deposed? Did that mean that the party leadership had "lost control" of things?

No, it just meant they fired somebody that they thought had become incompetent.

Those things happen. :)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by redstar2000
So there is a kind of embryonic proletariat there...but it&#39;s very small, very primitive, and no more capable of even imagining self-rule than of flying to the moon by flapping its arms.

Or better yet: it might be capable of self management, but it&#39;s just too damn small and has no material capacity to use for its self-emancipating tendency, thus, there&#39;s always a "power vacuum" in the social structure which is waiting to be filled up by those who are militantly ready at the given time. Just like in Russia.

[YKTMX]

In the real universe, Stalin and Mao both carried out what they both regarded as "Leninist" policies in their own countries. And, for that matter, they both had their own versions of "internationalism" -- they supported their friends (or potential friends) and opposed their enemies.




I emphasis those two parts just so people how liberal and petty bourgeois RedStar&#39;s thinking is.

Only a liberal could offer &#39;they really believed it&#39; as an excuse. It&#39;s like the apologists who defend Bush and Blair on the grounds that they &#39;really believed there was WMD in Iraq&#39;.

Mao and Stalin may very well have &#39;thought&#39; they were Leninists, or at least carrying out &#39;Leninist&#39; policies - just like they &#39;thought&#39; they were Marxists.

The important question for Marxists, but not for RedStar and the Capitulationists, is what class and whose interests do these figures represent.

Is it true that Stalin and Stalinism represent the same social force as the workers in the Petrograd Soviet and the Bolshevik Party in the glorious days of October? Is is true that the working class Red Army volunteers in the days of the Civil War against Kornilov, the Imperialists and the Anarchists, were the same people, with the same interests, as the apparatchiks who prosecuted the Moscow Trials?

Is there a &#39;straight line&#39; between the struggle of an oppressed mass to remake history and the Stalinist betrayal of the Spanish Republic?

My answer would be no.


[b]That cannot be a "coincidence".


They were also Marxist. What is the flaw in Marx&#39;s thought that causes this distortion in every Marxist party?


This could be what is happening in Vietnam. And it could be what will happen to Cuba.

Cuba and Vietnam have been capitalist since the day their revolutions took place. It&#39;s indicative of the paucity of your thought that you&#39;re bemoaning the &#39;restoration of capitalism&#39; in states which have been capitalist for decades.


Or better yet: it might be capable of self management, but it&#39;s just too damn small and has no material capacity to use for its self-emancipating tendency, thus, there&#39;s always a "power vacuum" in the social structure which is waiting to be filled up by those who are militantly ready at the given time. Just like in Russia.

The idea of a &#39;power vacuum&#39; is nonsense. There is no such thing as a &#39;power vacuum&#39; in any society - nor can there be. One class is always in power. There are societies which can be in transition from one type of class rule to another, but there is no such thing as a society in which &#39;no class&#39; holds power. It certainly wasn&#39;t the case in Russia.

Here&#39;s what I think happened:

The Russian ruling class absorbed February quite nicely. They replaced the autocratic system with a bourgeois democracy, and continued their prosecution of the ridiculous war. The Russian masses, led by the industrial working class, didn&#39;t fancy it much for some reason. They turned to a party and an idea that explained the vacillation of the Provisional government and offered another version, another, radical, possibility. The Bolsheviks patiently explained (to borrow a phrase) that the Russian workers could not single handedly build the Communist society, but that their boldness could inspire revolutions in other countries which could create socialism worldwide.

The Capitulationists, the Imperialists and the Fascists didn&#39;t like that idea. They formed their seperate armies to attack that idea. The Russian workers led by its revolutionary vanguard, defended that idea - but the cost of doing so was too great.

The Revolutions abroad - in Austria, in Hungary, in Italy, Germany etc - did not have their own Bolshevik Parties, they didn&#39;t have "that" idea. Those revolutions were led by people with &#39;other ideas&#39; - that socialism was impossible in their country, the Bolsheviks were tyrannical etc. They were crushed, or they compromised by the bourgeoisie.

This defeat left the Russian revolution isolated: it&#39;s material base decimated. And, just like Lenin predicted, the revolution collapsed from within. The democratic structures put into power by the revolution were deemed surplus to requirements by the froce of history. Lenin died. Industry collapsed. The workers starved and moved to the country. The Peasantry vaccilated.

Stalin came to power, representing a new social force, which had gained prominence amongst these goings on. He decided that this group, the bureaucracy, was the future. He murdered millions of workers and Bolsheviks, fulfilling the tasks that the White Generals had failed to. He kept the flags and the symbols and the rhetoric - like that other great usurper, Napoleon.

He helped other, similar leaders into power in other countries, and helped crush what he had helped crush in Russia in other countries. The Bureaucratic class now represented a new Russian ruling class in a state capitalist economy.


:(

Was this inevitable? No, I don&#39;t think so, and I don&#39;t there&#39;s any evidence that it was. There was evidence that is happened, but not that it was inevitable. If the German workers hadn&#39;t been lead by a spineless bunch of despicable class traitors, I believe we might all be living under International socalism today.



Or, you might believe that history progressed this way because the Bolshevik Party practiced Democratic Centralism and Lenin was a bastard.

It&#39;s your &#39;choice&#39;, of course.